This has been a fascinating and curious exchange and it has illuminated the
differences in "right to know" and "public archaeology" in a manner that is
intriguing.

In my experience, any report, site form, map, or other data presented to a
client in fulfillment of an agreement with that client belongs to the client
and not the archaeologist.  In these cases, it is up to the client to
determine if and how to make the information available.  I've seen this
written into agreements and made very explicit.  This brings out two obvious
concerns to our profession:  (a) the "need to know" effect of making site
data publicly available, and (b) the professional obligation to further
archaeological knowledge by sharing results of investigations.

Regarding the "need to know" of data protection, archaeologists often sign a
"confidentiality agreement" with SHPO or a government entity to allow us to
review the data and reports maintained by SHPO or the government office.  By
leaving the security of archaeological data in the hands of clients, the
archaeologist appears to be "hanging out" with respect to their agreement to
guard site location and content information.  Federal clients usually have
in place safeguards to protect the information, as do some state agencies.
County and city governments and private businesses and individuals usually
lack such policies.  I've seen several reports submitted to the latter group
wherein the archaeologist has put a cautionary statement or some other
disclaimer that says, in effect, the data are not to be shared with the
publish without prior written authorization from the SHPO.

When it comes to sharing information with the public and colleagues, the
"ownership" clause of agreements or contracts can dampen our professional
zeal to publish or present papers.  We have to obtain written permission
from the client, perhaps let them review a draft, and might have to give
credit to the client for funding the work.  Many clients are pleased to
comply, I've found.  But we might be asked to provide copies of the
publication or talk, which then moves us right back to the "need to know"
question when the presentation was intended for colleagues rather than the
general public.

With contract archaeologists scrambling to finish reports on schedule, there
is often little time left to pursue publication when doing so involves
asking permission to develop data obtained when working for a client.  This
is a CRM conundrum.

Lee A. Bennett, RPA
Bennett Management Services, LLC
PO Box 656
Monticello, UT 84535